click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121129
20121207
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
past the fiscal cliff, use automatic spending cuts to make sure taxes don't go up, at least on the great majority and then figure out what to do about the upper brackets, and if that is -- that would be a mechanism that would guarantee further action next year and as is very well possible they would disagree next year and there would be some sort of trigger or punishment for their lack of action. that sounds relatively simple, putting it all together could take at least a couple weeks after you have a deal, there could be some inevitable blow ups from conservatives in the house for the senate so a lot of it is speculation. secondly, a lot of of things that might go in this down payment, farm subsidy cuts, there is a proposal to make federal retirees--federal workers pay more towards their retirement, that can get pretty political pretty quickly. it is very much in flux. all of that presupposes they get an agreement. there is a school of thought that they can't get an agreement until after tax rates actually go. >> host: andrew taylor is with the associated press. does the yo
in mandatory across-the-board spending cuts over one year, to drag our nation over the so-called fiscal cliff. what those tax increases mean to an average american family of four earning $50,000 a year is over $2,000 in higher income taxes. add to that expiration of the alternative minimum tax patch, new taxes mandated by the federal health care bill, and the reinstatement of the death tax, which will impact the next generation of farmers, ranchers, and small business owners, which americans will see the largest tax increase in the history of our country. if all of this happens, the congressional budget office predicts the nation's economy will shrink next year and the unemployment rate could rise again. in other words, we go back into recession. i believe we can avoid the fiscal cliff and address our massive deficit but that requires doing three essential things: reforming our tax code, reforming entitlement programs, and better controlling our spending. we can get additional revenue by reforming our tax code. that means closing loopholes and limiting deductions. by closing loopholes and lim
cannot address the fiscal cliff without talking about entitlements, which are 54% of our spending. anybody can do the math on that. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the nuclear from arizona. -- the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i thank my colleague from texas for her leadership on this and so many other issues we have worked on over the years. one of my regrets in leaving the senate that i will not be able to work with her. we'll be off doing something else, but we're not going to give up on the fights we've been engaged in over the years. i want to pick up where my colleague left off about the meanings of this fiscal cliff and what is being proposed as alternatives to going over the fiscal cliff. i was interested that in week the president has embarked on what one newspaper referred to as "the fiscal cliff campaign trail." he is out as if the campaign were still going on, and the centerpiece of his pitch -- and i heard him say it again last night -- is that the house of representatives should pass a bill that was passed in the senate relate
the fiscal cliff prospect is the commendation of tax increases and spending cuts across the board and how they would have negative impacts. so we need to do it in a smart way. even as we find savings, we need to make targeted investments and we need to do things that help our economy and the long-term. >> [inaudible question] >> it is not specifically designed for that. it is the president's broader approach this. significant savings need to be where we can get them, a trillion plus in the budget control act, an additional $600 billion in savings but ford is part of the proposal. and also revenues from the wealthiest 2%, coupled to make the economy grow. it is stronger growth, stronger job creation. as a principle, deficit reduction done well and done right is positive for the economy. >> on the subject of israel, in the last few weeks, you asked about -- [inaudible] [inaudible question] the u.s. has been very steadfast to stand by israel. i'm wondering in light of that, are there any statements that have gone out in regards to what the president has done to express this and what the isra
in a balanced agreement, he's not particularly interested in avoiding the fiscal cliff, and he's clearly not interested at all in cutting any spending. what the president is really interested in, as we learned just yesterday, is getting as much taxpayer money as he can, first, by raising taxes on small business that he believes are making too much money and then on everybody else, not so he can lower the debt or the deficit but so he can spend to his heart's contefnlts for months the president has been saying all he wants is to raise taxes on the top 2% so he can tackle the debt and the deficit. however, yesterday he finally revealed that's not really his true intent. by demanding the power to raise the debt limit whenever he wants, by as much as he wants, he showed what he's really after is assuming unprecedented power to spend taxpayer dollars without any limit at all. this isn't about getting a handle on deficits or debt for him. it's about spending even more than he already has. why else would he demand the power to raise the debt limit on his own? by the way, why on earth would we e
as part of a balanced approach to deficit reduction and the fiscal cliff. he will not accept a deal that has specific cuts in spending, in entitlement programs that asks middle class americans, seniors who need loans, disabled children to pay a price on the one hand, and the promise, the vague promise, the unspecified promise of a revenue that appears from wealthier americans in the future. that's not a deal the president will not sign. >> i understand the process and what the white house is looking for from republicans, but i'm asking about the president's position. a yes-or-no question. his position that the tax rate has to go to 39.6% on january 1. >> he will not sign the bush tax cuts for wealthy americans. they have rates for top earners at 35%. if you don't sign it, it's up to 39.6 #, the top rate. that's a fact. secondly, he has not seen a single proposal or acknowledgement that a proposal is necessary or will be forthcoming from republicans that even it would be part of the balanced deal. we are now where we are in december, and we need congress, republican leaders in congre
as we come to the year end that we have a major deal which we must have on the fiscal cliff that we also include the farm bill. because with the farm bill we save $23 billion over what we've been spending the last few years. so let's get to work and get this done. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i ask unanimous consent that the following members of senator baucus' staff be granted floor privileges during the consideration of h.r. 6156. that would be lisa pearlman, rebecca nolan, owen hockey and dan rusk. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: i ask unanimous consent a dealee to the committee on banking, housing and urban affairs, katharine topping be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reed: thank you. we all
to be operating. as the fiscal cliff approaches, we should be work together across the aisle to address issues like we are today with the defense authorization bill but also other critical issues, including tax issues and spending issues and that's what i wanted to address today. we -- we have a lot of challenges and instead of pulling together, we seem to be pulling apart. and i'm specifically referring to some of the suggestions by some in the majority that we consider controversial and partisan rule changes that would marginalize minority members and doing it in a way that breaks the current rules to change the rules. and what i mean by that is, it takes 67 votes to change a rule here in the united states sena senate. that's a rule, by the way, that dates back to 1917. and the reason that's in place is because obviously, you know, folks wanted to force the majority and the minority to work together to make those rule changes. you don't get a two-thirds vote without that. and i think that's important, that the basic rules are ones that are agreed on. we tend to change parties a lot around he
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8